1996 PLP 111 (PLC)
MUHAMMAD SIDDIQUE and 3 others Versus MITSIIBHI CORPORATION (INCORPORATED IN JAPAN WITH LIMITED LIABILITY), KARACHI and. another
| Citation | 1996 PLP 111 (PLC) |
| Forum / Court | Labour Appellate Tribunal Sindh |
| Bench Members | Mushtak Ali Kazi, Appellate Tribunal |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD SIDDIQUE and 3 others Versus MITSIIBHI CORPORATION (INCORPORATED IN JAPAN WITH LIMITED LIABILITY), KARACHI and. another |
| Primary Law | Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1996 PLP 111 (PLC)?
This judgment primarily cites: Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1996 PLP 111 (PLC)?
The case was heard and decided by the Labour Appellate Tribunal Sindh bench comprising: Mushtak Ali Kazi, Appellate Tribunal.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1996 PLP 111 (PLC) (MUHAMMAD SIDDIQUE and 3 others Versus MITSIIBHI CORPORATION (INCORPORATED IN JAPAN WITH LIMITED LIABILITY), KARACHI and. another). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Abdul Majeed, Representative for Appellants.
- Raees M. Mushtaq for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 30th November, 1995,
Headnotes / Summary
S. 25-A
West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance (VI of 1968), S. 1(4)(a)
Grievance petition- Maintainability
Petitioners claiming to be employees of respondent Corporation, had failed to produce on record any appointment or termination orders
Respondent Corporation which had denied that petitioners were it: employees, was registered under Shops and Establishments Ordinance, 1965 and had employed less than twenty persons
Industrial Relations Ordinance 1969 and West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968, thus were not applicable to the case of petitioners especially when * they had failed to establish that respondent-Corporation employed twenty or more persons, not only that petitioner had also failed to produce any appointment and termination orders to prove that they were employees of the Corporation.
Judgment & Decree
Abdul Majeed, Representative for Appellants. Raees M. Mushtaq for Respondents. Date of hearing: 30th November, 1995, These four connected appeals arise from order of the Labour Court No. 5, Karachi, whereby the grievance petitions of the appellants under section 25‑A, I.R.O. were dismissed as being not maintainable. Two of the appellants namely Muhammad Siddique and Sultan Mubarik are private guards and provided to the officers of the respondent‑Corporation as private guards at their houses.
2. Manzoor Ellahi was provided by Security Agency as a guard at the office while Noor Zadeen was tea boy who was not in employment of anybody but he used to sell tea in that vicinity.
3. It is the case of these appellants that they were all employees of Mitsubishi Corporation but none of them have produced any appointment or termination orders. Respondents Mitsubishi Corporation have contended that they were registered under the Shops and Establishment Ordinance as they employed less than 20 workers. They have also denied that the appellants were their employees. The learned lower Court held that the respondent's establishment was registered under the Shops and Establishment Ordinance and the Standing Orders Ordinance and the I.R.O. were not applicable to their cases since the respondent Corporation employed less than 20 persons. The appellants in their evidence have failed to establish that the respondents employed 20 or more persons in Karachi nor have they produced any appointment and termination orders.
4. The orders of the Labour Court are accordingly maintained and these appeals are dismissed. H.B.T./2539/Lb.S Appeals dismissed.